Posts Tagged ‘mohel’

I know, I know . . . you’re thinking: there he goes with another meat blog. Well, that’s not the case. Not the case at all. Instead, this is a commentary on an article I read a few weeks ago that brought me up short.

It seems that there is a movement afoot by some Jews to overhaul one of the major rites of the Jewish tradition, the bris. Apparently, the circumcision of new-born male offspring is now up for grabs. According to the article, a number of Jewish parents are “aghast at what they see as unnecessary infliction of pain or even mutilation and are retreating from the ancient ritual.”

The article featured a woman who is a single parent living in, where else, Brooklyn. The mother was steeped in a Jewish background but is a feminist and activist who believes in the “right to your own body”. After struggling with her decision not to have a traditional bris (the kind that has cutting), she settled on a “gentle bris” ceremony. This rite called for the use of some alternative ritual objects. So, a mohel was replaced by a service that included a pomegranate, a gold kiddish (wine) cup and a large ceramic bowl filled with water to wash the baby’s feet. No mention was made of bagels, lox or appetizers.

As an atheist, I may be exactly the wrong person to be critical of this new-fangled approach. But I’ve been a Jew for my entire life and find that I’m still drawn to many of the religion’s traditions, the bris being one of them. Sure, it’s a little barbaric but after all, this has been going on for some 4000 years, starting with God commanding an adult Abraham to circumcise himself. (I imagine Abraham could have negotiated with God to see if He would settle, instead, for some fruit, wine and a large bowl of water. Maybe he could have thrown in a few goats to sweeten the deal. Had that happened, Jewish history penises would be so much different and . .. well, maybe most important, we wouldn’t have this essay.)

This is not the first time I’ve come across this bris mutiny. I checked my blog records and found that I had written about a similarcircumstance concerning a measure that was on the ballot in, where else, San Francisco, that would have banned circumcision for all men under eighteen. The proposed law called for making the practice a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of $1000 or up to a year in jail. (Imagine being in Alcatraz and your cellmate asks, “What are you in for?” “Foreskin issues” is the answer I’d give.) Needless to say, the measure failed.